Personally I believe it more a case of the politicians and newspaper editors on both sides being wrong in predicting a short war. They overstated the advantages and prowess of their side while underestimating those of the other side.

---------------A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country."to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"

It makes you realize that future advisories should have looked at the Civil War, as to just how hard Americans would fight!? Perhaps they would have thought twice about drawing America into future wars!?

MD

BTW IMHO I agree without Lee, the Civil War ends sooner!?

---------------"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

Which individual contributed the most to the prolongation of the war, and how?

--Rick Schaus

Robert E. Lee became the living embodiment of the Confederate cause. Without him the warwas over in 1862.

---------------"I do not believe that any man can adequately appreciate the world of to-day unless he has some knowledge of...[and] some feeling for...the history of the world of the past." Theodore Roosevelt

Personally I believe it more a case of the politicians and newspaper editors on both sides being wrong in predicting a short war. They overstated the advantages and prowess of their side while underestimating those of the other side. --John R. Price

Some people like to compare the Americans of 1861 with the Europeans of 1914....in both cases, people were supposedly expecting a short war and were horribly disillusioned.

Yet there were some prescient folks around who predicted prolonged and terrible conflict .

When I read Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns I was much struck by the number of Senators in the ante Bellum decade who warned against the prospect of a war that was bound to be dreadful and very destructive. Didn't Sam Houston prove very prescient in this regard ? Likewise, there were sagacious soldiers and statesmen, and bankers, who in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries warned against the traumatic and prolonged convulsion that an international conflict was bound to entail

Regards, Phil

---------------"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"

I disagree that the war would have been over in 1862 without Lee. By that time both Longstreet and Jackson had distinguished themselves in battle while demonstrating that they could maneuver divisions and corps. Clearly, it would have been a catastrophic loss, but as of the end of the year, while there were noteworthy setbacks in the West, in the Eastern Theatre, the South had not lost a battle. I would be hard pressed to concede that Antietam was anything more than a draw.

It is hard to identify a single individual that could have made a difference in the length of the war. The war was fought over an intractable issue, namely the expansion of slavery into the territories. The war would not end until that issue was resolved one way or another.

Perhaps Jefferson Davis could claim credit or blame for insuring that this issue remained paramount throughout the war, until the day he was captured in southern Georgia. In effect, the war essentially ended when he was taken into custody, because the Rebel generals remaining in the field (with the exception of Gen. Edmund Kirby Smith) had concluded that further resistance was fruitless.

Personally I believe it more a case of the politicians and newspaper editors on both sides being wrong in predicting a short war. They overstated the advantages and prowess of their side while underestimating those of the other side. --John R. Price

Some people like to compare the Americans of 1861 with the Europeans of 1914....in both cases, people were supposedly expecting a short war and were horribly disillusioned.

Yet there were some prescient folks around who predicted prolonged and terrible conflict .

When I read Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns I was much struck by the number of Senators in the ante Bellum decade who warned against the prospect of a war that was bound to be dreadful and very destructive. Didn't Sam Houston prove very prescient in this regard ? Likewise, there were sagacious soldiers and statesmen, and bankers, who in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries warned against the traumatic and prolonged convulsion that an international conflict was bound to entail

Regards, Phil

--Phil andrade

Agreed Phil,

Where vast conscript armies are deployed by adamant leaders, backed by mass production industry & have huge geographical areas to cover,wars are unlikely to 'be over by Xmas'..

Ok, a Napoleon, or Lee can affect things by martial skill, as can ineptitude by the enemy, but the 'money'/resource base usually takes it..

Which individual contributed the most to the prolongation of the war, and how?

--Rick Schaus

Both sides were of course responsible for prolonging the War, as it proved to be far more difficult for the Union than first thought. At the outset the Union was plagued by inferior generals. As well as those who simply were reluctant to fight. George McClellan might be the one man most responsible for prolonging the war, if indeed we could point our fingers at just one guy.

But his refusal to engage the CSA, when he enjoyed superior numbers, was really quite amazing. As well as dumbfounding. He sure perplexed Lincoln. Who once said to him that "if you're not gonna use my Army I should like to borrow it." LOL

McClellan might have been able to end the war very early, during 1862 and the Peninsula Campaign, if he would have just turned his Army loose. He had a great chance to sack Richmond, the Rebel Capitol. But he refused. Twice. Lincoln finally removed him, but by then the golden chance was lost. And for quite a while. Once Lee came into the fore, the CSA at least for a while became a force to be reckoned with, although they of course never had much of a chance.

As historian Shelby Foote once said, to paraphrase, the Union sort of always fought the war with one arm tied behind its back. And if they ever needed to, they could always just bring out the other arm. Their domination and superiority in material and men and arms and every measurable aspect was simply too much for the South to overcome.

For my money, the only chance the South ever had would've been if they coerced either England or France to come over and help them. This was possible for a short while, but certainly not after Antietam and when shortly afterwards Lincoln took the chance (after a very narrow but costly Union win) to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Once the War was made to be an issue of Slavery, then there was no way that Europe was gonna intervene.

IN closing, as far as prolonging needlessly, I always felt that the South should have thrown in the towel after that fateful July weekend in 1863 when they lost both the Battle of Gettysburg, and then Vicksburg was seiged. This was Grant at Vicks, after a months-long siege. The recognition he got from it was what made Lincoln decide to put him in charge of the Army of the Potomac.

But yeah, that weekend was called the Highwater Mark for the Confederacy. Never again would they venture into the North as in Gettysburg. And the loss of Vicksburg on the Mississippi effectively cut the Confederacy in half!

If that wasn't stubborn enough for the South, and Jeff Davis specifically, to not surrender and needlessly prolong things, they REALLY should have quit after Sherman sacked Atlanta! And then his ensuing March to the Sea where he cut a huge swath down to Savannah, and then began to slide up to pincer Lee outside Peters burgh. He sacked Atlanta in the late Summer of 1864. This was really the End for the South. But, amazingly they held on, with no chance whatsoever to win, or for the North to quit, for an entire SEVEN more Months!! All the way up till April of 1865 when Lee finally surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse.

Once Grant took charge it was pretty much lights out for the South. He fought a war of attrition. He knew he could afford to lose more men than could the CSA. Some say he was overly brutal and careless with his men's lives. I am of that belief as well, but he sure got the job done. Of that there can be no question.

Hell Rick, no one person can be blamed for prolonging that war. But, I would submit the name of Joseph Hooker for consideration. What happened at Chancellorsville was an absolute disgrace. The norm is to marvel at the audacity of Lee, the chutzpah of Jackson, the masterpiece Lee created. Well, all good points...but the real reason was the giant egg laid by Hooker. He stole enough of a march on Lee to carry out his plans. All he had to do was hard-push his army out of the Virginia scrubs, into the open where his artillery could help pummel Lee...and have Sedgewick drive a mere vidette from his front and come after Lee`s rear with Lee missing Longstreet and two divisions.

Had Hooker not lost his nerve...or hit the bottle too hard...Lee`s army could have been destroyed.

The greatest lost opportunity of the Union was not Sharpsburg, where Lee`s forces were in peril...but in a defensive position...or Fredericksburg, where Lee was unassailable...but at Chancelorsville, where Lee was badly outnumbered and out in the open.

Thanks "Fightin` Joe."

Respects, Morris

--------------- "You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."

I don't disagree with anything that you have written....but I do think that Darius Couch (II Corps commanders, and Hooker's 2IC, if I understand it correctly) also deserves censure. Hooker was clearly "concussed" (is that even a word??) when struck by the shattered pillar (at his headquarters). Couch needed to "step up" when it became evident that Hooker was "wounded".

Couch resigned from the AoP after Chancellorsville, supposedly because he would no longer serve under Hooker. But also, I suspect, because Couch realized that his lack of action after Hooker's wounding was a mistake.

Sears claims that Hooker was too far forward, and that the Confederate artillery was targeting the Chancellorsville house, cuz they had learned from prisoners that this was Hooker's headquarters.

If only one Civil War commander can be blamed here, that is, if we had to name just one responsible for prolonging the War, I truly do not see how anybody cannot agree with me that the obvious and most accurate answer is George McClellan.

Steve, interesting that the Confederate artillery was blasting away at Hooker`s headquarters from the slight plateau that Sickles had occupied and been ordered to give up and withdraw from. The stage is set for Sickles salient quest at Gettysburg.

Yes, Couch was Senior Corps Commander under Hooker. I don`t know why Couch wasn`t more forceful in his actions. I know that he and Hancock and French were about damn fed-up with the feckless command of both Burnside and, now Hooker....and I suspect that that, more so than self-doubts or regrets about his own actions, drove him to leave that army. But your point is quite possible that he did harbor such regret.

I recall that Couch would later write about the moment that Hooker remarked to him that "Lee is retreating toward Gordonville and I have sent the III Corps after him," and Couch recalled thinking to himself, "if that is so, and Lee is in retreat, why is only one corps being sent after him?"

There was a lot of nonsense on that side at Chancellorsville.

Respects, Morris

--------------- "You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."

I agree. There were vast machines underway, beyond the easy control of any one man, and a short war wasn't likely.

That being said said, the contenders for greatest contribution to extending the war could be (in no particular order):- Lee -- his successes and impact on morale kept the South in the field somewhat longer than might otherwise be the case -- till 1865 vs. 1864.- Jeff Davis -- kept the CSA going, but also interfered with military operations- McClellan -- arguably delayed Union victory by throwing away some key opportunities- Burnside and Hooker could potentially have delayed Union victory a bit, but less so than McClellan

There is a substantial force other than the AOP in and around Washington that will soon be under Pope so I'm not sure if Lee is going to have the ability to walk into Washington and dictate terms even if the AOP is destroyed. Also I don't think Lincoln or any of the Republicans in Congress or the Gov of the States will be willing to even consider surrender until they are voted out. Do you think the destruction of the AOP will cause the Republicans to lose the House and Senate and enough state Gov in the fall?

---------------A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country."to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"

I'd have to go with Hooker at Chancellorsville. He steals the march and catches Lee by surprise. Then he commits several errors over the course of the next few days that fritter all of his advantages. The opportunity to attack the AoNV in detail (on day 2 it was split into 3 separate parts: some in Fredericksburg, some with Lee between F'burg & the federals, and the rest to the west of the federals)with superior force was there, but never acted on. The AoNV should have been wrecked by that campaign.

I'd have to go with Hooker at Chancellorsville. He steals the march and catches Lee by surprise. Then he commits several errors over the course of the next few days that fritter all of his advantages. The opportunity to attack the AoNV in detail (on day 2 it was split into 3 separate parts: some in Fredericksburg, some with Lee between F'burg & the federals, and the rest to the west of the federals)with superior force was there, but never acted on. The AoNV should have been wrecked by that campaign.

Yours,JohnT--jthlmnn

Seriously John,

How did Hooker get the name "Fighting Joe"????

---------------"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

I'd have to go with Hooker at Chancellorsville. He steals the march and catches Lee by surprise. Then he commits several errors over the course of the next few days that fritter all of his advantages. The opportunity to attack the AoNV in detail (on day 2 it was split into 3 separate parts: some in Fredericksburg, some with Lee between F'burg & the federals, and the rest to the west of the federals)with superior force was there, but never acted on. The AoNV should have been wrecked by that campaign.

Yours,JohnT--jthlmnn

Seriously John,

How did Hooker get the name "Fighting Joe"????--Michigan Dave

I will apologize in advance for butchering the story....but my recollection is that there was a reporter's dispatch from the Peninsula campaign that was meant to read "Fighting on, Joe Hooker". The "on" got left out by mistake....and hence the "Fighting Joe Hooker" sobriquet.

John I think the "destruction" of the AoP on the Peninsula would have brought the cry for peace full song. Not sure if the North/Lincoln would have caved to it but it is interesting to think about. AoP was the largest Army with high hopes. Its loss certainly would have been a body blow.

John I think the "destruction" of the AoP on the Peninsula would have brought the cry for peace full song. Not sure if the North/Lincoln would have caved to it but it is interesting to think about. AoP was the largest Army with high hopes. Its loss certainly would have been a body blow.

Heard it as "Still Fighting-Joe Hooker" The newspaper left out the -.--john hayward

Very close, John. The story I keep coming across is that headline should have read, "Fighting-Joe Hooker", but the hyphen got lost. Lloking to see which newspaper it was supposed to be.

I agree it would have been a "body blow" but I don't see Lincoln or many Republicans even thinking about surrender. They can't because it would be the end on all their policy's and/or the farther breakup of the country. It was their economic policy that got them elected and with a basic free trade Confederacy they lose it's base and have no way to pay for internal improvements while Northern industry still has stiff competition from England and a lesser extent France. They will also be dependent on land sales in the territory's to just run the government. While the Midwest will be beholding to the Confederacy to bring their production to the world market down the Miss River. They were fighting for the political future of themselves and their philosophy of government and it was basically all or nothing.

---------------A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country."to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"

---------------A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country."to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"

---------------A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country."to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"

I agree it would have been a "body blow" but I don't see Lincoln or many Republicans even thinking about surrender. They can't because it would be the end on all their policy's and/or the farther breakup of the country. It was their economic policy that got them elected and with a basic free trade Confederacy they lose it's base and have no way to pay for internal improvements while Northern industry still has stiff competition from England and a lesser extent France. They will also be dependent on land sales in the territory's to just run the government. While the Midwest will be beholding to the Confederacy to bring their production to the world market down the Miss River. They were fighting for the political future of themselves and their philosophy of government and it was basically all or nothing.

I agree but I don't think enough strength to take back the House and Senate.

---------------A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country."to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"

The Corps under Sigel and Banks and the 9th Corps under Reno plus a division of Cavalry and plenty of arty.

---------------A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country."to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"

I have either at or in route to Newport News and two Divisions joined Pope soon after. Plus Lee isn't going to be able to just pick up and go on July 1. He's going to have major casualties to deal with, mopping up, scavaging the battlefield for equipment and supplies and organizing a change of base after determining where the enemy is concentrating and how many of then there are.

Bank's and Sigel's troops did the majority of fighting against Jackson at 2nd Manassas and pushed him to the brink.

---------------A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country."to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"

But after the 2nd Bull Run, Lee invaded the North only yo be checked by the AoP at Antietam. It is a what if but would there be an Union Army strong enough to stop Lee's invasion or would there be another defeat?

But even in real life Lee didn't attempt to give the Washington defenses a try. How many troops are on the Eastern Seaboard and guarding the Canadian boarder? How many are in the camps training? How many can you pull from the West? Maybe if Lee is marching through Maryland and PA as Sherman marched through GA but Lee didn't have the logistical capability Sherman had and there would have been a hell of a lot of troops converging on Lee that Sherman didn't have to worry about.

---------------A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country."to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"

Lee moving North after the destruction of the AoP on the Peninsula would have sent massive shock waves thru the North. The troops gathered to stop him might not have been to stop him. I don't think Lee needed to attack Washington just threatening it would have been enough. Quite a "what if"